Then, the researchers sought to establish the relationship between science denial and religious diversity at the individual level in a series of attitudinal studies. Using data drawn from the World Values Survey of more than 65,000 people, they found that countries with higher levels of religious diversity had lower levels of science denial, and vice versa. (Among the more religiously diverse, more science-friendly countries: Singapore and South Korea. Some of the less diverse and less science-friendly: Egypt and Yemen. The U.S. was in the middle on both measures.)

Ding and his colleagues also conducted surveys of Christians in the United States, Muslims in Pakistan, and Hindus in India, finding that people who were more intolerant of other religions also held negative attitudes toward scientific findings that conflict with their faith and science in general. “Across our studies, we found that religious diversity had significant effects on science denial in 21 of 23 analyses, and religious intolerance had significant effects on science denial in 21 of 21 analyses,” Ding says.

What sells science?

Ding’s interest in the relationship between religion and science is rooted in marketing. “Science communication is core to the marketing of many products and services, and scientific ideas are marketed, too,” he says. “So, thinking about how people process and internalize science — and what leads them to reject it — is fascinating to me.”

Approaching science denial as a marketing problem, Ding says he had several audiences in mind as he conducted this research. “There are policymakers — those who are trying to change people’s behaviors for good and especially those who have the power to change the diversity structure of society,” he says. “There are educators who are trying to teach science and stimulate cognitive flexibility in their students, and there are science researchers who are trying to promote their work.”

Ding’s research suggests that policies that promote communities with religious diversity can reduce religious intolerance and science denial. For example, in 1989, Singapore adopted its Ethnic Integration Policy, which mandated ethnic diversity in public housing to stem the growing segregation of its Chinese, Malay, and Indian residents. Because these ethnic groups are closely affiliated with different religions and more than 80% of the country’s residents live in public housing, the policy created greater inter-religious contact. Ding and his colleagues found that Singapore has extremely high levels of innovation and science education attainment relative to other countries.

Science educators and researchers seeking to influence students and the public need to think about how the information they impart will be perceived by people of different religions, Ding says. “If you can demonstrate that you have something in common with a group, the group will trust you more,” he says. “Broader than that, I would say that communicators should try to be more open and more tolerant of other ideas themselves. Then, recipients will not perceive them as being intolerant and will see them as more trustworthy.”

Anything that encourages people to consider opposing ideas is a good thing, according to Ding. “We’re inundated with information that is empowered by advanced technology. This information can help us solve problems, but it can also create problems like science denial,” he says. “Cognitive flexibility is the superpower that can help people combat these unanticipated problems and religious diversity is one path to cognitive flexibility.”